Early Childhood Education Management

Insights into business practice and leadership

Mary Moloney, Jan Pettersen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317310860
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The Early Childhood Education sector around the world is constantly changing, whether because of the unprecedented demand for ECE services globally, accelerated social change, or the introduction of pedagogical and regulatory practices. Based upon empirical inquiry, Early Childhood Education Management examines the somewhat controversial concept of operating an early childhood service as a business. It challenges the assumption that an early childhood manager does not require specialist knowledge or skill and discusses which attributes an effective manager should possess.

In this book, which brings together management theory and practice, Moloney and Pettersen address core issues at the heart of the management role, including the relationship between early childhood policy and broader legislative enactments, as well as issues related to the challenges and development of management skills. The book also draws upon real-life examples from practice in order to offer insight into some of the most common topics and challenges related to management practice in Early Childhood Education, such as business acumen and entrepreneurship, recruitment and selection, financial management and budgeting, supervision, mentoring, staff development, curriculum management, collaborative working, and change management.

Written by leading academics with practice experience, the book should be of great interest to researchers, academics and postgraduate students in the field of education, specifically those working in early years and education policy and management. It should also be essential reading for managers working in Early Childhood settings.

---

Chapter 1
Introduction

---

Following a period of turbulence in the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector in New Zealand, Sarah Farquhar (2010) suggested that the NZ Government was playing a greater role than ever in determining the financial viability of early years services. She was of course, referring to the numerous changes in policy and practice in NZ in a relatively short space of time. These changes included the introduction and revision of the 20 hours free early childhood education (ECE), the introduction of a 100 per cent qualified teacher target in Pathways to the Future, a 10-year strategy for the ECEC sector (Ministry of Education (MoE), 2002), and the subsequent reduction of this target to 80 per cent for educators working with children over two years of age, and 50 per cent for the under two age group (Dalli, 2008). The happenings in NZ are indicative of a greater malaise within ECEC globally, and they are deeply entangled with how the sector is perceived and valued at a macro social, political, economic and cultural level.

While the struggle for ECEC to be recognised within the education system is well documented (Moloney, 2015a, 2016; Moloney & Pope, 2013; Lobman & Ryan, 2007; Helterbran & Fennimore, 2004), it has been suggested that, in recent years, the sector has travelled up the priority list of national policy agendas across the globe (Miller & Cable, 2011, Moss 2008, 2009). This upward trajectory has been influenced by a myriad of factors including:

• The impact of various longitudinal studies in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and New Zealand (NZ), for example, which indicate that investment in ECEC is the most powerful investment a country can make.

• Unprecedented demand for ECEC services globally. For instance, as at March 2015, the number of children in New Zealand who had attended an early childhood setting before starting school was 96. 1 per cent (MoE, 2015), in the UK, 96 per cent of the three- and four-year-old population were availing of funded early education as of January 2013 (Butler, Lugton & Rutter, 2014), with 95 per cent of eligible children participating in the free pre-school scheme in Ireland in 2014 (www.dcya.ie).

• Accelerated social change, because of the numbers of mothers involved in paid employment outside the home, the need to support parents to balance employment and caring responsibilities is now a core issue for policy makers around the world (Brennan & Adamson, 2015). Moreover, the cost of ECEC provision is problematic, with considerable differences between countries. Australian parents pay as little as 9 per cent of the cost of ECEC, while in Ireland the cost can be as much as 30 per cent of net income. In Norway, however, where 83 per cent of mothers with children aged one to two years are employed, childcare fees are capped at NOK 2,405 per month (i.e., (€252) (Engel, Barnett, Anders & Taguma, 2015). It is not surprising therefore, that the need to develop an affordable childcare system in Ireland is considered to be a ‘pressing social challenge’ (Joint Committee on Health and Children, Oireachtas report, 2016)

• Introduction of pedagogical and regulatory practices at the national and international level such as the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergarten in Norway, the Early Years Foundation Stage in the UK and the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016 in Ireland.

Today, the sector is closely aligned to the discourse of early intervention, where it is seen as laying the foundations for lifelong learning, eliminating child poverty, and fostering social inclusion within an increasingly diverse population. Governments in individual countries have high expectations of the sector terms of optimising child outcomes in preparation for school readiness. Initiatives such as the ‘Every Child Matters Agenda’ in the UK, the ‘Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge’ in the US (the Obama Administration education reform initiative), the ‘Start Strong for America’s Children Act, 2013’, No one left behind: Early interventions for lifelong learning (the Norwegian White Paper No. 16 (2006–2007), and the introduction of a Free Pre-school scheme in Ireland in 2010 create high stakes for ECEC providers who are continually under the gaze of government departments, funders, external agencies, parents, families, the community and wider society.

Much of this attention focuses upon issues of cost, quality and the affordability of ECEC provision. This trio of policy foci is not new, and these issues have been central to political agendas for decades. Indeed, it is 16 years since Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence (1999) wrote Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. The authors, representing different countries – Sweden (Dahlberg), England (Moss) and Canada (Pence) – shared unease about the way quality was defined as universal and measureable with regards to child development outcomes. They challenged policy makers to reconsider what quality means in early childhood education and care, and how it can be achieved.

The reality however, is that while numerous publications, policy initiatives, and public and private discussions have taken place, and much research has been under taken in the intervening years, under-investment, lack of political will, poor remuneration, and the absence of a professional identity for the sector has undermined and impeded the quality agenda. In the third of a series of publications that explore international comparisons of ECEC in developed countries, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2012) published Starting Strong 111: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care. This publication aims to provide tools for policy makers who are trying to identify the best policy measures for enhancing quality in ECEC services. It examines a range of policy measures that impact on quality, and groups them into what the OECD terms Policy Levers. There are five such levers: 1) Quality goals and regulations; 2) Curriculum and standards; 3) Qualifications, training and working conditions; 4) Engaging families and communities; and 5) Data collection, research and monitoring. Each lever is meant to promote quality in early childhood education and care. A fourth OECD (2015) publication, Starting Strong 1V: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, is centred upon monitoring quality. The concept of ‘monitoring’ has entered the ECEC lexicon. But what does it mean? Monitoring is the current tool to enhance the level of quality in settings, and to inform policy makers and the general public about the state of early childhood education provision in their country. It is a Government tool that is devolved to regulatory bodies (early childhood inspectorates) for the purposes of assessing and monitoring the quality of provision in the ECEC sector. Gomendio (2015) states that the purpose of monitoring is accountability with or without explicit sanction or reward, for enhancing child development, improving staff performance, and identifying the learning needs of staff and of children. Although various government administrations have sought and continue to try to develop strategies to enhance the quality of provision, such as increasing qualification requirements, introducing quality standards, enhancing governance structures and regulatory regimes, quality continues to be an elusive concept.

Taking all of these factors into account, ECEC is undergoing a period of unprecedented change. There is a trend toward prioritising education for children aged three years and over, often at the expense of younger children (Moloney, 2015a). Hence Farquhar’s frustration at the reduction from 100 per cent of qualified teachers to 50 per cent for the under two age group in New Zealand. One of the advantages of focusing upon the older age group is the alleged relationship between attendance at ECEC and school readiness. This provides tangible evidence to Governments of a return on investment. Indeed, Ireland is a case in point, where an emerging alignment between ECEC (children aged three years and upwards) has yielded considerable investment in the sector since 2010. Interest in who and what constitutes an early childhood educator has also gathered momentum, and there is an emerging emphasis upon professionalism within, and professionalisation of those working in the sector (Moloney, 2015a, 2015b). This constellation of factors situates the sector within an ever-changing social and political landscape, with a continual and intense focus upon the quality of ECEC provision.

Generally, discussions of quality focus upon the role of the early childhood educator, i.e. the adult who assumes the care and education of young children in the ECEC service. And while the management role is clearly linked to the quality of provision, and is increasingly complex, little attention has been paid to the early childhood manager. In our view, the ECEC manager is the lynchpin of quality, the person that holds it all together, providing the link between policy and practice. This situation is about to change in Ireland, where the management role and management structures are now the focus of the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016, which were introduced on 30th June, 2016. Ebbeck & Vaniganayake, (2002, p. 40) suggest that in general, ‘the success of an organisation correlates with the quality of its managers’; moreover, ‘administration and management can facilitate and hinder the quest for quality’ within settings (Bernard Van Leer Foundation, 2008, p. 7). Drawing upon the empirical data that underpins this book, we quote a manager who states that ‘bad practice begins and ends with the manager’ and another who says that ‘every setting deserves a good manager’. These are sobering thoughts, and worthy of more in-depth consideration. They give rise to many questions: What do we mean by the term ‘good manager’? What constitutes good management? What are the roles and functions of an ECEC manager? What are the characteristics of an effective manager? Is experience as an educator within an early childhood setting adequate preparation to take on the role of managing a setting? Is a good manager the person who has always dreamed of owning and managing an early childhood setting? Or is it the person who has undertaken a bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education but does not have any knowledge of business administration or management? This book challenges the assumption that an early childhood education and care manager does not require specialist knowledge, skill or disposition. Combining theory and practice, it provides unique insight into the experiences of early childhood managers in the context of how they operate their respective settings.

Collectively the factors outlined in this chapter create considerable challenges for and place an unprecedented onus upon ECEC managers to be accountable to a broad range of stakeholders: children, parents and families, government bodies, external agencies, funders and staff. Managers are inevitably engaged in what Isles-Buck & Newstead (2003) call the ‘doing’ part of management, i.e. filling in forms and managing finances and resources, while simultaneously, they are involved in a more vital task of management, that of leadership (ibid.). Indeed, it is widely acknowledged that management and leadership in early childhood are interchangeable, and one without the other is a set-up for failure (Miller & Cable, 2011; Sullivan & Garland, 2010; Jones & Pound, 2008; Aubrey, 2007; Moyles, 2006; Rodd, 2006). While this link between leadership and management cannot be overlooked, this book is primarily concerned with the concept of management as a distinct discipline. It examines the dichotomy between ECEC as a ‘caring’ profession and operating ECEC as a business, and it proposes that these twin objectives are not necessarily incompatible, nor should one be compromised for the other. This book troubles conventional notions of management as an almost static, passive activity. Rather it is emphasises the dynamic relationship between financial management and quality provision, human resource management and quality provision. At the core of this book is a focus upon sustainability without which quality cannot be achieved.

The management of an ECEC setting occurs within an ecological framework, where the manager operates within and between differing layers of the eco-system as they work with children, parents, families and educators within the micro-system, the early years inspectorate, funders, mentors, formal school environments, and other external agencies within the meso-system, and with legislators within the macro-system. Managers also simultaneously manage issues and challenges within and between systems as difficulties emerge in working relationships with stakeholders – differences in opinion with inspectors, educators, and parents, frustration with funding mechanisms, etc. Equally, because of the highly regulated nature of the sector, managers must be aware of the entire gamut of legislation that applies to ECEC management, not all of it related to early childhood education and care. In fact ECEC brings together legislation from the business and financial world, the world of employment, the world of education, the world of early childhood education and care, the world of health and safety. We could go on; suffice it to say that ECEC operates within a legislative quagmire. Legislation is not static, it changes in response to events nationally and further afield. As new legislation is enacted, and introduced, the manager’s role is in a constant state of flux. Managers are responsible for embracing and implementing government schemes, many of which impact upon the working environment, leading to change management. Certain schemes may even result in unintended consequences including financial insecurity. Consequently, managers are subject to ever changing roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Undoubtedly ECE settings are continually growing and changing in response to global and national influences, and as a result, the management role is also evolving and increasingly complex. Yet, the manager’s role continues to remain on the periphery of early childhood education and care discourse, and other than texts that explore leadership and management as an interchangeable concept, core management functions are seldom addressed.

Empirical data

As one-time ECEC managers (in Ireland and Norway) and as current lecturers on early childhood undergraduate degree programmes in Ireland, we have long had an interest in the relationship between management and quality in early childhood education and care. With regards to Ireland, the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations (Department of Children and Youth affairs (DCYA) 2016) determine baseline quality requirements for ECEC relating to structural aspects of provision (e.g. educator/child ratios, floor space, ventilation, heat, light), as well as process aspects embedded in Part V: Health, Welfare and Development of the Child (DCYA, 2016). Within Part V is a focus upon the programme of activities, or the early childhood curriculum. ECEC managers are responsible for allocating human and material resources, for financial, and cultural management, and for creating an environment where educators and children are motivated and able to participate in all activities, as well as managing change so that educators’ plan for and introduce changes leading to better standards (Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) 2003, Hearron and Hildebrand, 2011). In 2014, Tusla: The Child and Family Agency commissioned a report on the Quality of Pre-School Services in Ireland (Hanafin, 2014). While the report indicated that the majority of pre-school services were compliant with the Childcare (Pre-School Services) Regulations, 2006, (which were being implemented at the time of the research) most of the time, it also identified a number of areas for improvement. Significant levels of non-compliance were identified in relation to Governance (Hanafin, 2014), which is a core management function. Resulting from this report, TUSLA introduced a revised model of Pre-School Inspection, and since January 2015, a primary scope of pre-school inspections focuses upon governance (Child and Family Agency, 2015), which has been further strengthened through the introduction of the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations, 2016.

Therefore, the impetus for our research came from the increasing demands upon managers in Ireland, not only in relation to the emerging focus upon governance, but also by the introduction of universal free pre-school provision since 2010, and mandatory training requirements due to come into effect in 2016, the transition from a system of notification to registration of services since 2014, and the introduction of education focused inspections to be undertaken by the Department of Education and Skills (DES) with regards to children aged three and upwards availing of free pre-school provision and the implementation of the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations, 2016 from June 2016. In borrowing from Sarah Farquhar, we are concerned that through these various initiatives, which are placing exceptional demands and pressure upon the sector, the Irish Government is now determining the financial viability of early years services, irrespective of whether they are privately or publicly funded. Aligned to this rationale is our interest in the age-old dichotomy between not-for-profit and for-profit ECEC provision, where the former is seen as an altruistic service for disadvantaged children and families, and the latter as a money making venture that is primarily concerned with profiteering from children.

This book draws upon two studies undertaken ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• 1 Introduction
• 2 International context
• 3 Management theory
• 4 Business management
• 5 Entrepreneurship
• 6 Roles and responsibilities of an early childhood manager
• 7 Financial management
• 8 Human resource management
• 9 Managing performance
• 10 Change management
• 11 Final comments
• References
• Glossary of terms
• Index